get_deputy_by_name

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list and returns an APIResponse, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'retrieves' but not explicit). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure without redundancy, though the 'helper tool' line is somewhat vague and could be more precise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (APIResponse), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, which is adequate. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, it leaves gaps in understanding usage and limitations, making it only partially complete for a retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name' by specifying it's 'the name of the deputy to search for', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic title 'Name'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could detail format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'list of deputies by name', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deputy_expenses' or 'get_bills_by_deputy', which also retrieve deputy-related information but with different filters or data types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's a 'helper tool that abstracts the process of querying for a deputy by name', but this is vague and doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'list_endpoints' or 'call_endpoint'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.